Posted on 01/08/2008 8:16:22 AM PST by jdm
Bloggers had speculated on the actual subject of a series of e-mails from a publicist breathlessly informing us of a "Swift-boating" on a major presidential candidate, complete with documentation and hard evidence. Some thought it might target Hillary Clinton, some John Edwards, but the plurality went with Mitt Romney -- and that turned out to be the correct answer. Revelation Press apparently wants to conduct the Klan's 1928 anti-Catholic campaign against Al Smith, updated for eight decades later, at least according to the e-mail I received:
"Should Romney become U.S. President," Moody explained, "his oaths create an inevitable conflict of interest. Just as an Army private is not free to question his General's orders &-- and does so only at the risk of a dishonorable discharge -- Mormons such as Mitt Romney question their Living Prophet's revelations and edicts only at risk of excommunication. This penalty is unthinkable to any faithful Mormon -- and in Romney's December 6th speech, he swore to remain faithful to his religion.
"As Noah Feldman pointed out," Moody pointed out, "since the days of founding Prophet Joseph Smith, Mormons have held their secrets close -- including their 'White Horse Prophecy:' one day a Mormon leader will literally ride in to save the U.S. Constitution -- and to transform America into the base for the institution of a world-wide Mormon theocracy. Since his college days, when I was Mitt's fraternity brother at Brigham Young University," Moody said, "Mitt's made it clear to his intimates that he was pre-ordained to fulfill this prophecy, to become the Mormon President who would save our Constitution and transform America as Joseph Smith prophesied.
We've seen this crap before, especially those Roman Catholics among us. As I noted above, it played right out of the Ku Klux Klan's playbook in the 1928 presidential election, and even came up during John Kennedy's campaign in 1960. The argument goes that a man who professes allegiance to a church, especially one with a hierarchy, cannot "serve two masters" and therefore cannot serve the Constitution. America heard a lot of nonsense about Papal infallibility and how the Pope cannot be defied on any matter -- all of which was nonsense then, and is still today.
I had to laugh at this press release, though, as it is so badly written. Take for example this passage: "As Noah Feldman pointed out," Moody pointed out, ... That's a lot of pointing in a short space of time. Did someone lose their Roget's Thesaurus, or can we presume that this is indicative of the literary quality of Revelation's stable of authors?
For the record, Mormons, Catholics, and Anglicans have no trouble separating the spiritual from the temporal. If Noah Feldmans' hypothesis was true, then we couldn't be trusted in the military, either. Who knows when the Pope or the Mormon's leader would issue contravening orders, preferably through secret handshakes or subliminal broadcast from the Temple? We also couldn't be trusted as governors -- never mind Mitt's failure to turn Massachusetts into East Utah, or his father's failure to convert Michigan residents into good Mormons.
Catholic and Mormon politicians have given this nation splendid public service, and given no hint of disloyalty or even confused priorities between their public responsibilities and their religious beliefs. People like Feldman want to create the kinds of sectarian animosities that have riven other democracies. They should be rejected, and then aggressively ignored.
Everlasing covenant refers to God’s covenant, with everlasting being God.
You are side stepping the issue. What was happening in 1890 that preceeded Wilson's declaration? We can explore what happens in the temple later.
Not in the context it was written in, go back and re-read.
>huck “will call anyone Unchristian who doesn’t go along with his political agenda”
I agree. That’s hogwash. While I believe Huckabee is intolerant of some religious beliefs of others, I have not seen anything to support that view.
I'm sidestepping what you'd like the issue to be. The real issue is what the Lord reveals to His prophet. What else was going on doesn't matter much by comparison.
Still not convinced? Then, just type "Huckabee, illegal immigration, Unchristian" into a google search.
Did you even live through Jimmy Carter's era? If you did, you could clearly see the parallels with the Huckster.
Why don’t you help me out. It is referred to as the “everlasting covenant” which is the covenant of temple marriage. It is everlasting because it is God’s covenant, and remains in place forever, binding man to God for eternity.
What’s your point?
1890 and period preceeding it, the US Government outlawed polygamy, stripped the mormon church of its assets and was in the process of moving federal forces into Utah to fully disinfranchise the mormon church because it would not follow federal law. Wilson's declaration (revelation?) came in response to that. So what changed TChris? Smith had no problem disobeying anti-polygamy laws, neither did Young. You're god's revelation had no problem being counter to the law of the land either until 1890, so what changed?
>Just for documentation, can you tell me where God did that?
I don’t think that there is LDS scriptural documentation (meaning Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C or PofGP) on blacks not being able to receive the priesthood.
It is true that it was a common belief among Christian churches in the 1800s that blacks were descendants from Cain, and were prohibited from receiving all the blessings of God. Brigham Young seems to have followed this viewpoint as well.
And the other Christian denominations used this viewpoint to justify denying blacks the right to be baptized, receive the sacrament, worship in their churches, and to be subject to slavery.
The sole discrimination by the LDS Church against blacks was regarding the priesthood. Of course, blacks were unable to receive the priesthood according to the Old Testament as well.
Point is, the context of 132 is not 'temple marriage' although that is what it has morphed into to a certain degree. Smith in 132 made it clear that it was binding to the mormon peoples in actual practice for eternity. Smith, who received the 'revelation' saw polygamy as a here and now requirement. That is the context you fail to see in 132. Beginning to see my point now?
You can choose to believe that Mormon leaders changed the doctrine on polygamy because (i) God told them to, or (ii) response to political pressure.
That’s your choice. What’s your point? That God would never order His people to conform to a nation’s law for their safety, well-being, and progress?
This is hardly saying that he "will call anyone Unchristian who doesn't go along with his political agenda". This is *one bill* he was addressing. He did not stand up and say *heretic* you shall be banished from the church which is clearly what your post implied.
I have seen most politicians pull the 'its unamerican' or 'its unchristian' card out at one time or another. Dial down the hysteria a notch, address in in proper scope and you might have a point.
I've already answered that question. Apparently, you had another answer in mind.
Since you want our discussion to be a forum for you to post your beliefs about the Mormon Church and its practice of polygamy, why continue to pretend that you're asking questions?
Save us both the time and post a vanity that's properly labeled as such.
Your statement that you do not believe Section 132 refers to temple marriage shouts out that you don’t have any understanding of what that section is all about.
Might I suggest that you stop informing Mormons what their own published and copyrighted scripture means? I think the Church might know a little better about its own scripture than you do.
True but that’s not the question though. The question is whether it was right or wrong.
Every Protestant church has pretty much said “It was wrong”.
You know, the fact that there are apparently intelligent/rational people in the GOP making a man’s religious beliefs a main reason for opposition to vote for a man disgusts me.
>True but that’s not the question though. The question is whether it was right or wrong. Every Protestant church has pretty much said “It was wrong”.
First, where can you point me to evidence that Protestant and the RC Church have apologized for supporting slavery?
Second, where has any Protestant or RC church claimed that God was wrong to deny blacks the priesthood in the Old Testament?
This is really getting tiresome guys ——
I am a Mormon and I have a revelation for you – I don’t give a “Rat’s A**” what you think about me or my beliefs!! I do not now nor have I ever needed your permission or justification for anything. Furthermore, I am under no obligation to explain my beliefs to your satisfaction.
If you think Mormon teachings are evil and wrong – FINE – don’t join our church.
If you think Mormon people are evil or wrong or misguided – FINE – don’t associate with us.
If you don’t like Mitt Romney – FINE – don’t vote for him.
If you REALLY don’t like Mitt Romney – FINE – donate money to other candidates and campaign against him.
It seems to me that most people on Free Republic are conservative and would like to see a Republican elected as the next President. How is constantly sniping at each other and pissing people off going to help us reach that goal? There are about 3 million voters in the US that also happen to be Mormons. Maybe that is only 2% of the likely voters in the next election but when elections are often decided by 2% or less - we will matter.
I am only one person but I have been very offended by Mr. Huckabee’s attacks on and blatant lies about my faith. If he is the Republican nominee in November, I will be staying home on Election Day. Sour grapes you say?? Maybe, but I have just as much right to dislike Huckabee as you do to dislike Romney.
Is this any way to work together to elect a conservative US President this fall? I think not. I hope all of you “Mormon haters” will feel justified next January when we inaugurate President Obama or President Hitlery.
Mormonism began when Joseph Smith declared all Christian denominations to have gone astray from the faith, the Bible to have become perverted over time.
The funny thing is that the original documents and doctrines of Mormonism have been found by the LDS church to have been faulty.
I have no beef against individual Mormons. Their founding and their doctrines, though, are outright laughable. Just some silly, albeit very creative, stuff. I’m stunned that anyone believes it. I guess it does that that mindless “warmth in the belly” to convert to such an indefensible faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.